12 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Paleo's avatar

Arguably, we haven’t had a real landslide since 1984.

Expand full comment
Wolfpack Dem's avatar

I wonder if we ever really will? If "generational political talent with maximum tailwinds" (Obama '08) didn't do it, and none of Trump's shitshows did...

Expand full comment
Skaje's avatar

Landslides only happen with incumbent re-elections (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, FDR). The trend in recent decades has been towards more modest re-elections (Clinton '96, Bush '04) and then actual declines (Obama '12) and now defeats for the incumbent party. No one can predict the future but I doubt that Trump's term will set up Vance for a commanding victory in 2028. Being the party in power is a net negative now, not just during midterms. Can't imagine what political environment would permit something like '64, '72, or '84 again.

Expand full comment
Toiler On the Sea's avatar

Given media bubbles I think a repeat of those elections is literally impossible. Even if you had one of the candidates caught skinning a puppy alive on video, >40% of the electorate would be convinced it was a deep-fake.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

Depending on which half of the electorate, you could even see them come out in support of it.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

In the meantime, the puppy-killer / puppy-skinner is likely to be appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. With scant attention from voters and nary a protesting voice.

Expand full comment
Mike in MD's avatar

Depending on your definition, I think there are several change-of-party elections that could qualify as landslides: Harding 1920, FDR 1932, Ike 1952, and Reagan 1980 among them. Tellingly, though, the last such was 44 years ago. (Obama 2008 is probably the closest we've come to that since then, and at least historically that wasn't really a landslide.)

Expand full comment
Toiler On the Sea's avatar

Eh unless one has an unrealistically strict definition I'd call 1988 and 2008 landslides. I'll leave 1996 arguable given the unique Perot impact.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

The old definition was a 10 point plus win. Which we haven’t had since 1984. 1988 was certainly an electoral landslide. Clinton in ‘96 came close both popularly and electorally.

Expand full comment
Wolfpack Dem's avatar

yeah, I was thinking around 55% popular vote

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

From 1920-1984, 12 of the 17 elections were popular and electoral vote landslides.

Expand full comment
Lance Schulz's avatar

I’d say ‘88, too. 400+EVs is pretty strong. But I agree none since then.

Expand full comment